[Advaita-l] A replica of Adhyasa Bhashya in the Gita Bhashya13.26 (V Subrahmanian)

[mc1 at aol.com]

Isn't the parsing of mithyAjnana into mithya ajnana a tautology = "false ignorance"? Which makes no sense
On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 3:51 PM H S Chandramouli via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Raghav Ji,
>
> Namaste.
>
> Reg  << P.S. Would you say there is any other way to atleast hint that
> avidyA is
> > not-abhAva from adhyAsa bhAShya alone? (Since the avivekena reference has
> > to be dispensed with in view of maintaining concordance with gItA bhAShya
> > 13.26.? I admit the constraint of adhyAsa bhAShya alone is a bit unfair!
> >> ,
>
> Copying below from AdhyAsa BhAshya of Sri Mani Dravid Shastrigal.
> Translation I think is by Sri Shastri. Not sure if this answers your
> question.
>
> << Mithyajnana is split up as mithya+ajnana, i.e. ignorance which is
> mithya, that is, it cannot be described as either real or unreal. This is
> the
> reason for the wrong identification. By using the word ‘nimitta’ after
> mithyajnana in the Bhashya it is pointed out that ignorance is the
> material cause (upaadaana kaaranam) of the superimposition. In
> Vedantic terminology, the word ‘nimitta’ is used to denote the efficient
> cause and the word ‘upaadaana’ denotes the material cause. But in
> grammar and also in worldly usage ‘nimitta’ is used to denote material
> cause also. In Nyaya several kinds of causes such as samavayi,
> asamavayi, nimitta, are mentioned, but in Vedanta only two causes,
> nimitta and upaadaana, are accepted. For any effect to be produced a
> material cause is necessary. Illusion (bhrama), being an effect, must have
> a material cause. In this sentence in the Bhashya there is no other word
> to denote the material cause and so the word ‘nimitta’ has been
> interpreted by Prakatarthakara as material cause. The word
> itaretaraavivekena—meaning, ‘due to non-discrimination between the self and
> the
> not-self’- has been interpreted as denoting the efficient cause.
> Brahman is both the efficient and the material cause of the universe,
> but it is the material cause only through vivarta or transfiguration and
> not parinaama or transformation, Ajnaana is the material cause of the
> universe by transformation (parinami-upaadaanakaarana). Ajnaana is a
> defect (dosha) and so the word nimitta implies that ajnana is the efficient
> cause also.
> Can the word mithyajnaana be split up as mithya+jnaana also? The
> answer is no, because the word would then mean adhyasa itself, but not
> the cause of adhyasa >>.
>
> Being the upAdAna kAraNa, avidyA cannot be of abhAvarUpa.
> Regards
>
>
>

On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 8:24 PM V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Can the word mithyajnaana be split up as mithya+jnaana also?
>
> Actually those who do not subscribe to the 'muulaa avidyaa' have opposed
> the 'mithyaa cha tadajnaanam cha' and favored the 'mithyaa cha tad jnaanam
> cha' as this would give them the meaning adhyasa for that word without the
> need for an avidya that is the cause of the adhyasa.
>
> regards
>
> Yes. That is right. That is an alternate view.They also contend that
>> avidyA is abhAvarUpa.
>
>
Regards